Codex Alimentarius

CODEX AWARENESS INITIATIVE:
If you would like to help spread the word, please Email: ianrcrane(at)hotmail(dot)com

Sunday, 5 July 2009

The Arrogance of Rima Laibow .... Exposed!

PRESS RELEASE

NATIONAL HEALTH FEDERATION EXTORTED!!!

June 30, 2009

Recently, the National Health Federation – the World’s oldest health-freedom organization, the only health-freedom organization accredited by Codex to attend and speak out at its meetings and which has been diligently following and attending Codex meetings since the mid-1990s – received an extortionist e-mail from one of the newest organizations to arrive on the health-freedom scene. In it, these upstarts clumsily demand that the Federation put them on the Federation’s Codex delegation or else they will try to take away our accredited status!

In their own words, here’s the extortion they have threatened us with:

“Dear Scott,

The Natural Solutions Foundation wants to congratulate you for your appearanceon the Gary Null Show concerning NHF's role at Codex. You styled NationalHealth Federation as the "Voice of Health Freedom". We welcome many voicesIn health freedom and I've always supported the good work of NHF, since evenbefore the 1979 "Appreciation Award" I received from NHF, which proudly remains on the wall of my office.

I must, however, raise a matter of concern with you regarding NHF's role inCodex. According to the 18th Codex Procedural Manual, Rome, 2008, under the heading "PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE PARTICIPATION OF INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS IN THE WORK OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION", p. 23, Section 1,

"1. PurposeThe purpose of collaboration with International Non-Governmental Organizationsis to secure for the Codex Alimentarius Commission, expert information, adviceand assistance from International Non-Governmental Organizations and to enableorganizations which represent important sections of public opinion and areauthorities in their fields of professional and technical competence toexpress the views of their members and to play an appropriate role in ensuringthe harmonizing of intersectoral interests among the various sectoral bodiesconcerned in a country, regional or global setting. Arrangements made withsuch organizations shall be designed to advance the purposes of the CodexAlimentarius Commission by securing maximum cooperation from International Non-Governmental Organizations in the execution of its programme."

Thus, in keeping with these principles, we find it disquieting that althoughNatural Solutions Foundation attends Codex meetings (and will be at theCommission meeting in Rome next month), is clearly a source of expertinformation, represents important sections of public option (we are thelargest "net roots" health freedom organization in the world by a severaltimes) and are authorities in our fields of professional and technicalcompetence, your organization has not yet seen fit to offer us a seat at the table, quite literally, as co-observers.

We note that you often do so with other organizations representing far smaller numbers of constituents.

It would appear, then, that despite a clear mandate from Codex to make surethat NGOs participate in order to provide accurate representation of publicand professional opinion and perspective, there is a choice to ignore that responsibility given by Codex when your Observer Status was granted.

As we have pointed out on numerous occasions, Scott, the other side iswell-armed, equipped and fully arrayed. There are too few of us and we have ahuge battlefront to cover. It makes far more sense to collaborate than tocompete and the health freedom presence at Codex could be strengthened enormously by such collaboration.

Do we have to contest NHF's observer status through the Codex mechanism, inorder to have a seat at the table? I hope not; avoiding that would be toeveryone's benefit. I know we can find the way to be both respectful andsupportive collaborators, despite personal or professional differences among some involved.

Please contact me to work out the details of NSF participating in the HealthFreedom Seat at Codex, as was directed by Chairman Claude Moshe and as has yet to be implemented.

Our millions of readers will be happy to learn that you have chosen to open the floor to THEIR voice as well.

Besides having insulted us by assuming that we do not already represent their “millions” (really, millions?) of readers as well at Codex meetings, Mr. Fucetola reveals his complete ignorance of Codex procedure and facts. This is one of the reasons why letting NSF join the Federation at the Codex table would be one of the worst things to do for health freedom.

1. The Cited Paragraph Does Not Support NSF’s Demand.

First of all, as any literate person can plainly see, the Codex text quoted by Mr. Fucetola does not require the National Health Federation – an official accredited INGO at Codex meetings – to accept NSF on its Codex delegation. The paragraph talks about how Codex wants to benefit from the expertise of INGOs. It says nothing that would require an already-accredited organization to accept a non-accredited organization into its ranks. Even a 6th-grade student on drugs could see that.

And even if it did, why pick on the Federation? Why not pick on a commercial organization that sells coffee and other products, such as NSF does, instead? There are several commercial organizations, accredited by Codex, that share the similarity of commercialism that is the hallmark of NSF. Has NSF contacted them to extort a seat at the Codex table? Who knows?

2. There Was No Public Demand by the Codex Commission Chairman.

Besides getting the then-Codex Chairman’s name wrong – it is Mosha not Moshe – Mr. Fucetola then trots out the old line, repeated at http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2931 that basically claims "we were denied ‘Official Observer’ status a couple years ago on the theory that the ‘Official Observer’ is obligated under the Codex rules to make a place at the table for us."

As can be seen, Mr. Taylor’s report makes no mention whatsoever of these events. The reason for this is very simple: the version of events described by NSF is mostly fictitious. Yes, NSF's application for membership was considered at this meeting. However, this was only done through its momentary consideration as a very minor agenda item. Indeed, as Mr. Taylor recalled, the Chairman was about to close the day's proceedings when he realized that he hadn't dealt with it.

As the Committee was about to begin packing up for the day, the Chairman merely cited the relevant agenda item, referred to the Codex Executive Committee's recommendation of a few days earlier (to reject NSF's application), and asked if there were any objections to this recommendation. Needless to say, no objections were expressed. As a result, the entire matter was dealt with in the virtual blink of an eyelid; and, most importantly, in the few seconds that it took of the Executive Committee's time, Mr. Taylor does not recall the words "Natural Solutions Foundation" having been mentioned even once. Equally importantly, the official denial of observer status to NSF had nothing at all to do with "the theory that the “Official Observer” is obligated under the Codex rules to make a place at the table for us," as has been claimed by Mr. Fucetola and NSF in its recent press release./1

3. No other Codex Provision Supports NSF’s Position Either.

NSF’s recent press release attacking the National Health Federation also claims that Codex somehow requires NHF to include NSF on its delegation. Its press release then refers to yet another paragraph in the Codex Procedural Manual as “support.” Yet, any plain reading of this paragraph in the current edition of the Procedural Manual does not support NSF’s position either./2

What NSF conveniently forgets to tell its readers is that this paragraph comes in the section on "Information Required of International Non-Governmental Organizations Requesting ‘Observer Status’” (at page 35 of the PDF). (emphasis added) This statement (weak though it is anyway) only applies when more than one organization is applying and requesting observer status at the same time. As such, given that the Federation already has had official Observer status for many years now, this statement is essentially irrelevant and inapplicable.

NSF has been pretending during its few years of existence that it is some sort of “powerhouse” at these Codex meetings, but the reality is that they are completely excluded from the meeting room floor (except when they sneak in), must sit in a separate section reserved for public viewers, the same as anyone off the street would occupy, and most delegates are oblivious to their ghostly presence.

BUT, REGARDLESS OF THE RULES, YOU MIGHT ASK, WHY NOT LET NSF BENEFIT FROM THE FEDERATION’S SEAT AT THE CODEX TABLE?

You mean, even if NSF doesn’t mind using extortion to get what it wants, the Federation should still give in to the extortion????

Why not? Because it would absolutely destroy the only health-freedom seat at Codex!

How could the Federation work with NSF’s incredible incompetence and inability to tell the truth? Here are just a few of the many reasons why we say No:

In March 2005, NSF announced that Codex would take vitamins and minerals off health-food store shelves in the U.S. by July 31, 2005. When we pointed out to them in person that this absolutely would not happen and they would make the health-freedom movement look bad when the removal from store shelves did not occur, they flatly refused our request to stop making this announcement. Of course, four years later vitamins and minerals are still freely found on health-food store shelves in the U.S.

Considering that it paints a picture of itself as an “authority” on Codex issues, NSF still incorrectly claims that "The CODEX ALIMENTARIUS Commission meets every two years, always offshore (Rome, Bonn, Paris, etc.) and never in Smallville, U.S.A." (Seehttp://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?page_id=176) In fact, the Commission meets every single year, alternating between the FAO headquarters in Rome, Italy and the WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.

When the Central American Free Trade Agreement – CAFTA – (which requires the application of Codex standards within the United States) was hanging by a thread and was even defeated on the House floor for a short while, NSF helped divert action against the anti-health-freedom bill by announcing that CAFTA was not a threat to health freedom! NSF did this while the handful of true and sincere health-freedom groups fought feverishly against CAFTA. The International Advocates for Health Freedom has dealt with this issue at length on its website.

At the April-May 2008 meeting of the Codex Committee for Food Labelling in Ottawa, Canada, NSF was behind the ill-advised South African move to inject religion into a strongly-secular Codex at the wrong time. The result was major blowback that resulted in the South African delegate, Mrs. Antoinette Booyzen, being called on the carpet by her own government, humiliated, and thereafter side-lined from future Codex meetings. The NHF lost a valuable Codex ally as a result of NSF’s clumsy, behind-the-scenes manipulations.

In fact, it can be argued that the NHF had lost Mrs. Booyzen as an ally even before because once NSF started appearing at Codex meetings, Mrs. Booyzen unaccountably stopped coordinating her Codex activities with NHF and began only associating with NSF. Whether this was intentional or not on the part of NSF is irrelevant because the result was the same: Mrs. Booyzen strangely stopped working with NHF.

As a self-pronounced "source of expert information" (see http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=2931), NSF's notion that "Codex Alimentarius sharply restricts or eliminates most medicinal herbs and limits the conditions that can be treated using medicinal herbs to a small number of trivial ones" is grossly inaccurate and patently false./3 Medicinal herbals are not subject to Codex jurisdiction.

And another example of NSF’s flagrant grandstanding without substance: They boldly announced, "A major newspaper in this [African] country runs a full page story on the importance of our stand on Codex and health freedom! We will scan it and share it with you AFTER the Codex meeting. It urges the country to take care to protect its access to healthy and natural options! In color, no less!" (Seehttp://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=117) Of course, no scan of any such African newspaper story has ever either been published on the NSF's website or, that we know of, sent out to its subscribers. What happened to it? Did their dog eat it? Was it confiscated by U.S. Customs upon their return home? Was their suitcase lost in transit?/4

NSF is a large resource sinkhole, draining valuable resources away from other health-freedom organizations. For example, to attend last year’s Codex meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, NSF was demanding donations of $33,000. NHF sent its delegate to the exact same meeting for only $3,000!

NSF is shunned by the vast majority of health-freedom organizations, including the American Association for Health Freedom, Alliance for Natural Health, Dr. Rath Health Foundation, International Advocates for Health Freedom, National Health Freedom Coalition, Fritts Helsevalg, MayDay, La Leva di Archimede, and the National Health Federation, all of whom work together amongst themselves cooperatively on a variety of different health-freedom issues, showing thereby that it’s not a “turf war” issue. These organizations will just simply have nothing to do with NSF.

NSF preys on the unsophisticated and/or naïve health-freedom activists who are interested enough in health freedom to get taken in by NSF’s slick jargon or else ask “why can’t we all just work together,” while those who know better have carefully avoided NSF and realize that you cannot work with everyone, especially those who continuously put out false or incorrect information.

NSF THEN ATTACKS THE FEDERATION IN ITS MOST RECENT PRESS RELEASE

Hiding behind the false belief that by not mentioning the Federation by name it is somehow not attacking us directly, NSF grandiosely and incorrectly states in its recent press release that: "You deserve a voice that represents you at the Codex table. The rules and regulations of Codex demand that and so do we." Perhaps thinking that Mr. Fucetola’s extortionist e-mail was not sufficient, NSF has gone public with its demand.

For the reasons mentioned above, NSF does not have a leg to stand on and – as usual – misstates the law and exaggerates the facts in its “fast and loose” claims.

Just as one example, NSF outright lies to its readers when it claims in its press release that it “initiated the process of a meeting”:

"In fact, shortly after the Natural Solutions Foundation was created, General Bert and I initiated the process that led to a 2005 "Summit Meeting" of the Health Freedom groups on both sides of the Atlantic in Crystal City VA. Except for meeting our third Trustee, Ralph Fucetola, his wife Kathy and Attorney Jim Turner there, the results were pure T' N E: Turf and Ego."

The truth is that the summit in question (which was attended by Scott Tips and Paul Taylor, amongst many others) was organized by the American Association for Health Freedom and the Dr. Rath Health Foundation. The largest single funding for the summit was provided by the Dr. Rath Health Foundation. Aside from their persistent demands to be allowed to attend, Laibow, Stubblebine, and NSF had no role whatsoever in the organizing of it.

How can these persons be trusted? They cannot even tell the truth about the origins of a simple meeting, but must claim credit for it. Is it any wonder that knowledgeable health-freedom activists and organizations will have absolutely nothing to do with them? Again, there are simply some people and organizations that just cannot be worked with.

DON’T BE FOOLED BY NSF’S CUTE, FUZZY WORD GAMES – THEY BELIEVE IN EXTORTION AND AREN’T AFRAID TO USE IT!

In other words, NSF is saying that if they cannot benefit from the National Health Federation’s hard work in having secured and kept an official seat at the Codex table, then NSF is going to do its best to take it away from them. Like a spoiled five year old in pre-school bawling about not having a toy, they are meanly going to try to destroy it rather than let anyone else have use of it!!! At the most basic gut level that tells you volumes about how much NSF really cares about health freedom.

And as for Mr. Fucetola, he is a very different person than NHF president Scott Tips first met back in 1969, or even the NHF thought it knew thirty years ago in 1979. It’s high time that he took that “Appreciation” plaque off his wall and mailed it back to the Federation. After receiving his clumsy extortionist threats, the Federation demands its return. Ungrateful extortionists such as Mr. Fucetola do not deserve to display awards of “appreciation” while biting the hands of those who gave it to them.

The National Health Federation had been in existence for 50 Years before the NSF suddenly materialized on the health-freedom scene as “instant experts.” In our opinion, they are a commercial business that spouts health-freedom slogans to entice donations and sales of products. Earlier this year someone created a parody of NSF that made the rounds and can still be viewed at http://naturallysolvent.blackapplehost.com/, which hilariously spoofs NSF’s commercial materialism. Perhaps this parody says it best of all.

So, you be the Judge – Does NSF deserve a seat at the Codex table? A commercial operation that from the very beginning has never gotten its Codex facts straight, shunned by every real health-freedom organization that the Federation works with, and whose idea of advancing health freedom in the World is to threaten us – a genuine health-freedom organization – with the loss of our legitimately-gained Codex seat if the Federation does not cave in to NSF’s extortionist demand, NSF doesn’t even deserve the time of day.

The real health-freedom organizations have worked with us for years on Codex issues without any problem, and they merit your support. If any good is to come out of this exchange between the Federation and NSF, at least it will be your realization that NSF is not among those organizations that merit support.

At page 35 of the PDF, it states "If more than one organization with similar interests is requesting observer status in any field of activity, such organizations will be encouraged to form themselves into a federation or association for the purpose of participation. If the formation of such a single organization is not feasible, the application should explain why this is so." (emphasis added)

Some of NSF's claims are beyond comment and nothing but pure sensationalism. For example, NSF says that “Dr. Grossklaus, Chairman of CAC and anti-nutrition Chairman of the pivotal "Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses" (CCNFSDU), had the delegate from India bodily removed during a November 2003 CCNFSDU meeting. The delegate's crime? Insisting on discussing the inclusion of CCNFSDU-approved material in baby formula which could kill 10% of newborns in his country. After the delegate was forcibly removed, Dr. Grossklaus nonchalantly declared the issue approved by "consensus." (Seehttp://www.healthfreedomusa.org/aboutcodex/indepth/wto.shtml.) Yet, NSF did not even attend this 2003 meeting, and, in any case, did not even bother to form their organization until late 2004 or 2005. For accurate reports on what actually happened at the meeting by those in attendance, please see Paul Taylor’s report at http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/Events/bonn2003codex.html and Scott Tips’ at http://www.thenhf.com/codex_09.htm.

NHF Codex Overview (May be used as an article or printed as a handout to educate on Codex) -

********************

As the oldest and best-respected health-freedom group on Capitol Hill, the NHF continues to be the credible source of objective assessment of, and proactive actions on, Congressional legislation and FDA matters that have material impact upon our freedom-of-health choices and access to dietary supplements and nutritional foods.

National Health Federation: Established in 1955, the National Health Federation is a consumer-education, health-freedom organization working to protect individuals' rights to choose to consume healthy food, take supplements and use alternative therapies without unnecessary government restrictions. The NHF is the only such organization with recognized observer-delegate status at Codex meetings. www.thenhf.com

Wednesday, 29 October 2008

Codex Presentation - Stroud - Thurs 13th Nov 2008

PRESS RELEASE:

Uncommon Knowledge is a brand new series of talks and presentations at the Painswick Inn Project, Gloucester Street, Stroud. The regular events, organised by Christopher Hill and Theresa Johnson, will bring together top speakers from different fields under a common theme:

“Many societies seem to be entering a period of transition, whether environmental, cultural or economic. We feel this is a good time to be raising questions, re-evaluating old perspectives, and looking at ourselves and the world with fresh eyes. We hope Uncommon Knowledge will provide a platform for new and exciting research that will entertain us and challenge some of our preconceptions.”

The series kicks off on Thursday 13th November at 7.15 pm with The Global Food and Drug Code, a presentation by Scott Tips and Ian R Crane. Scott is President of the US based National Health Federation and author of the book 'Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism'. Independent researcher Ian R Crane is the author, presenter and producer of one of the most informative DVD's on the Codex agenda, focusing on what is being seen by many as an international threat by corporate industry and global organisations like the WTO (World Trade Organisation) to natural farming, global food standards and complementary health.

This topic is extremely pertinent following the recent revelation that, 'Gordon Brown and other European leaders are secretly preparing an unprecedented campaign to spread GM crops and foods in Britain and throughout the continent...', as reported in the 26th October edition of The Independent on Sunday. The following day the headline of the Daily Express screamed, 'PURPLE TOMATO CAN BEAT CANCER'. So it would seem that the 'campaign' is already underway.

Event organiser Christopher Hill said, “This will be Scott’s first public presentation in the UK, so we are particularly excited to welcome him to Stroud, home of the Biodynamic Agricultural Association.”

Thursday, 31 July 2008

Just in case you were in any doubt about the UK Governmental support for GM trails:

Food: Scientists want top security for GM crop tests

· Both trials approved in UK this year were attacked· Demand for 'freedom to gain knowledge'

Since 2000 almost all of the 54 GM crop trials attempted in Britain have been vandalised to some extent.

Trials of genetically modified crops should be conducted within a national high-security facility or in fields at secret locations across the country to prevent them from being attacked and destroyed by anti-GM activists, scientists said yesterday.

Researchers spoke out after protesters ripped up crops in one of only two GM trials to be approved in Britain this year, and ahead of a meeting with government ministers, which has been called to discuss ways of providing better protection for crop trials in future.

Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming, and whether GM variants will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.

Since 2000 almost all of the 54 GM crop trials attempted in Britain have been attacked to some extent.

In a meeting planned for early September environment ministers will be asked to consider establishing a secure GM crop facility at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (Niab) in Cambridge, where the last remaining GM crop trial - of a blight-resistant potato developed by the German company BASF - is being conducted. Security for that trial, which includes a perimeter fence and 24-hour security guards, has cost more than £100,000. An identical trial at the site last year was damaged by activists in a night raid. In other proposals scientists will be seeking permission to conduct small-scale GM crop trials at undisclosed locations, and possibly a secure register to hold full details of their trials, instead of making them public. Under an existing EU directive GM crop trials in Britain can only go ahead once a full description of the crop, along with a six-figure grid reference that effectively pinpoints the planned location of the trial, have been made public.

Last month a Leeds University trial of cyst-resistant GM potatoes was destroyed by anti-GM activists. Howard Atkinson, who led the research, said the trial, which involved only 400 plants, was too small to be considered a threat to the environment, and that paying for costly security "to protect against zealots" was hard for a university to justify.

Atkinson called on the government to adopt a strategy similar to that in Canada, where small experimental trials of a few acres and less can be conducted in secret, with full disclosure only required for larger commercial trials. "We demand the academic freedom to gain knowledge and a society that doesn't allow scientists to do that has got a problem," he said.

Wayne Powell, director of Niab, backed the calls for greater security of GM trials, adding that the exact locations of trials was originally required to inform local farmers and growers that GM crops were being planted close by. "We have to look at the way we're doing trials in a way that ensures they don't get vandalised," he said. "The consequence of not having field trials is you reject these crops before society has had a chance to consider the benefits."

While North America and other countries have adopted mass growing of GM soya, cotton and maize, there are no GM crops grown in Britain.

Clare Oxborrow, a food campaigner with Friends of the Earth, said: "The government must stand firm and resist this attempt to keep the public and farmers in the dark over GM crop trial locations."

Big Pharma in a Frenzy to bring Cannabis-based Medicines to Market

While the the American Medical Association claims pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is busy getting patents for marijuana products.

The US government's longstanding denial of medical marijuana research and use is an irrational and morally bankrupt public policy. On this point, few Americans disagree. As for the question of "why" federal officials maintain this inflexible and inhumane policy, well that's another story.

One of the more popular theories seeking to explain the Feds' seemingly inexplicable ban on medical pot goes like this: Neither the US government nor the pharmaceutical industry will allow for the use of medical marijuana because they can't patent it or profit from it.

It's an appealing theory, yet I've found it to be neither accurate nor persuasive. Here's why.

First, let me state the obvious. Big Pharma is busily applying for -- and has already received -- multiple patents for the medical properties of pot. These include patents for synthetic pot derivatives (such as the oral THC pill Marinol), cannabinoid agonists (synthetic agents that bind to the brain's endocannabinoid receptors) like HU-210 and cannabis antagonists such as Rimonabant. This trend was most recently summarized in the NIH paper (pdf), "The endocannabinoid system as an emerging target of pharmacotherapy," which concluded, "The growing interest in the underlying science has been matched by a growth in the number of cannabinoid drugs in pharmaceutical development from two in 1995 to 27 in 2004." In other words, at the same time the American Medical Association is proclaiming that pot has no medical value, Big Pharma is in a frenzy to bring dozens of new, cannabis-based medicines to market.

Not all of these medicines will be synthetic pills either. Most notably, GW Pharmaceutical's oral marijuana spray, Sativex, is a patented standardized dose of natural cannabis extracts. (The extracts, primarily THC and the non-psychoactive, anxiolytic compound CBD, are taken directly from marijuana plants grown at an undisclosed, company warehouse.)

Does Big Pharma's sudden and growing interest in the research and development of pot-based medicines mean that the industry is proactively supporting marijuana prohibition? Not if they know what's good for them. Let me explain.

First, any and all cannabis-based medicines must be granted approval from federal regulatory bodies such as the US Food and Drug Administration -- a process that remains as much based on politics as it is on scientific merit. Chances are that a government that is unreasonably hostile toward the marijuana plant will also be unreasonably hostile toward sanctioning cannabis-based pharmaceuticals.

A recent example of this may be found in the Medicine and Health Products Regulatory Agency's recent denial of Sativex as a prescription drug in the United Kingdom. (Sativex's parent company, GW Pharmaceuticals, is based in London.) In recent years, British politicians have taken an atypically hard-line against the recreational use of marijuana -- culminating in Prime Minister Gordon Brown's declaration that today's pot is now of "lethal quality." (Shortly thereafter, Parliament elected to stiffen criminal penalties on the possession of the drug from a verbal warning to up to five years in jail.) In such an environment is it any wonder that British regulators have steadfastly refused to legalize a pot-based medicine, even one with an impeccable safety record like Sativex? Conversely, Canadian health regulators -- who take a much more liberal view toward the use of natural cannabis and oversee its distribution to authorized patients -- recently approved Sativex as a prescription drug.

Of course, gaining regulatory approval is only half the battle. The real hurdle for Big Pharma is finding customers for its product. Here again, a culture that is familiar with and educated to the use therapeutic cannabis is likely going to be far more open to the use of pot-based medicines than a population still stuck in the grip of "Reefer Madness."

Will those patients who already have first-hand experience with the use of medical pot switch to a cannabis-based pharmaceutical if one becomes legally available? Maybe not, but these individuals comprise only a fraction of the US population. Certainly many others will -- including many older patients who would never the desire to try or the access to obtain natural cannabis. Bottom line: regardless of whether pot is legal or not, cannabis-based pharmaceuticals will no doubt have a broad appeal.

But wouldn't the legal availability of pot encourage patients to use fewer pharmaceuticals overall? Perhaps, though likely not to any degree that adversely impacts Big Pharma's bottom line. Certainly most individuals in the Netherlands, Canada, and in California -- three regions where medical pot is both legal and easily accessible on the open market -- use prescription drugs, not cannabis for their ailments. Further, despite the availability of numerous legal healing herbs and traditional medicines such as Echinacea, Witch Hazel, and Eastern hemlock most Americans continue to turn to pharmaceutical preparations as their remedies of choice.

Should the advent of legal, alternative pot-based medicines ever warrant or justify the criminalization of patients who find superior relief from natural cannabis? Certainly not. But, as the private sector continues to move forward with research into the safety and efficacy of marijuana-based pharmaceuticals, it will become harder and harder for the government and law enforcement to maintain their absurd and illogical policy of total pot prohibition.

Of course, were it not for advocates having worked for four decades to legalize medical cannabis, it's unlikely that anyone -- most especially the pharmaceutical industry -- would be turning their attention toward the development and marketing of cannabis-based therapeutics. That said, I won't be holding my breath waiting for any royalty checks.

Oh yeah, and as for those who claim that the US government can't patent medical pot, check out the assignee for US Patent #6630507.

Friday, 27 June 2008

Ian R. Crane on Codex & the Big Pharma Scam

Sunday, 25 May 2008

U.S. using food crisis to boost bio-engineered crops

The Bush administration has slipped a controversial ingredient into the $770 million aid package it recently proposed to ease the world food crisis, adding language that would promote the use of genetically modified crops in food-deprived countries.

The value of genetically modified, or bio-engineered, food is an intensely disputed issue in the U.S. and in Europe, where many countries have banned foods made from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.

Proponents say that GMO crops can result in higher yields from plants that are hardier in harsh climates, like those found in hungry African nations.

"We certainly think that it is established fact that a number of bio-engineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance," said Dan Price, a food aid expert on the White House's National Security Council.

Problems anticipatedOpponents of GMO crops say they can cause unforeseen medical problems. They also contend that the administration's plan is aimed at helping American agribusinesses.

"This is a hot topic now with the food crisis," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. "I think it's pretty obvious at this point that genetically engineered crops—they may do a number of things, but they don't increase yields. There are no commercialized crops that are designed to deal with the climate crisis."

President George W. Bush proposed the food package two weeks ago as aid groups and the UN World Food Program pressed Western governments to provide additional funds to bridge the gap caused by rising food prices. The aid must win congressional approval.

It would direct the U.S. Agency for International Development to spend $150 million of the total aid package on development farming, which would include the use of GMO crops.

The U.S. is the UN food program's largest donor, providing nearly half the help the group receives from governments. It gave about $1.1 billion to the WFP in both 2006 and 2007. The WFP provided $2.6 billion in aid in 2006.

In April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested at a Peace Corps conference that "we need to look again at some of the issues concerning technology and food production. I know that GMOs are not popular around the world, but there are places that drought-resistant crops should be a part of the answer."

Some aid organizations agree that it is time to consider GMO crops.

"I think it's good, that it should be part of the package," said Mark Rosegrant, an environment and technology specialist with the International Food Policy Research Institute. "It shouldn't be the only thing in the package. It is now showing quite a bit of potential in starting to address some of the long-term stresses, drought and heat."

But Noah Zerbe, an assistant professor of government and politics at Humboldt State University in California, said that GMO crops might not be appropriate for developing countries.

"You get fantastic yields if you're able to apply fertilizer and water at the right times, and herbicides to go along with that," Zerbe said. "Unfortunately, most African farmers, they can't afford these inputs."

Africa ambivalentThe U.S. tried to introduce GMO crops to Africa in 2002, with mixed results. European Union opposition was part of the reason that several African nations that year balked at an offer of U.S. aid that included corn, some of which was genetically modified.

In a severe drought, Zambia rejected the U.S. aid altogether. Several other countries accepted the U.S. corn, but only after it was milled.

The NSC's Price said the administration is working to persuade European nations to lift their objection to the use of GMO crops in Africa. Rosegrant of the research institute said that, given current food shortages, new bio-safety measures could resolve such problems.

"There's evidence that those fears tend to be overblown," Rosegrant said.

Tuesday, 29 April 2008

The Alternatitive ReView

An International Conference held in Totnes has been hailed as an outstanding success.

The Alternative View, which was organised by local researcher Ian R. Crane in association with Breathing Space magazine, was held at the Totnes Civic Hall, with a range of speakers including David Icke and attended by people from as far afield as the north of Scotland & Denmark.

The conference’s main focus was the threat to complimentary health and organic farming from the Codex Alimentarius guidelines that are being gradually incorporated into UK law.

The conference was kicked off on Friday evening with an energetic presentation by Phillip Day, the founder of The Campaign for Truth in Medicine, who gave an insightful talk on how simple it is to take control of your food to lead a healthy lifestyle and minimalise risk to conditions such as cancer and heart disease. Mr Day stressed the importance of drinking a couple litres of water a day and eating fresh organic food; he gave several examples of cancer patients who were cured alone by using nutritional food advice.

Dr Robert Verkerk, executive director of the Alliance for Natural Health, started the second day, with a presentation on the implications of the Codex Alementarius commission that threatens complimentary healthcare, vitamin supplements and organic farming. Dr Verkerk explained how it is not the Codex Commission itself that is imposing these restrictions on our freedom to choose, but in fact the European Union that requires all EU member states to implement the Codex Guidelines into their national laws.

Dr Verkerk told a shocked audience how the Codex Guidelines, when implemented, will make the permissible levels allowed in dietary supplements so low that it will render them virtually useless and it will even be illegal for a practitioner to recommend a particular product.

“Any communication about the benefits or health claims of a product would become illegal and also under Article 11 they will ban any weight loss claims of any sort and any claims that refer to behavioural changes. So for example, though we have a very substantial problem in our society with consumption of inappropriate foods, to say that taking Omega 3 fatty acids are good for ADHD children, would be illegal. Yet that may be a very important and fundamental piece of advice a practitioner needs to give to their client or patient."

“Unless your product is licensed as a medicine, you are not allowed to talk about its benefits, even if it is a food. We believe that there's a reasonable chance that the Nutrition and Health Claims regulations could also be illegal under European Law,” said Dr Verkerk.

Ex-BBC reporter Tony Gosling followed with a talk on the secret invisible governments, exposing sinister secretive organisations such as the elite Bilderberg Group that meets every year in secret. Mr Gosling raised laughs when he played a recording of a phone call he received at one o’clock in the morning from a rather inebriated Dr John Reid, former Home Secretary, calling from the USA asking him to shut down his web site www.bilderberg.org, as it was causing frictions between US and Anglo relations.

“I immediately made sure that my web site was updated,” Mr Gosling added to an hysterical audience.

Acclaimed author and crop circle researcher Andy Thomas gave further insight to the global agenda that raised serious questions into the official versions of major world events from the moon landings to the attacks of 9/11. Aided by a powerful visual presentation, Andy Thomas demonstrated how some of the lunar landing photos were clearly faked and how the use of controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers on 9/11.

Perhaps the most controversial speaker of the event was ecologist Peter Taylor who presented an alternative view to the Global Warming phenomena. Peter Taylor has a long background as an ecological consultant for government agencies and independent companies, including Greenpeace. In his talk he explained how he is concerned that the prevailing models of climate change don’t take changing astronomical influences into account.

“Climate change is happening too fast for it to be caused by man-made carbon emissions,” he said. “The data just doesn’t add up.”

Mr Taylor presented data from NASA and The Hadley Centre in Exeter that showed the Earth has actually started to cool in recent years.

“If I’m right then we will be entering into a period of global cooling,” he added. “And I’m pretty darn sure that I am right.”

Perhaps not surprisingly, the speaker who generated the most interest was author and former BBC sports presenter, David Icke, who filled the Civic Hall leaving a few people standing at the back.

Backed up with an array of slides, David spoke for over 2 hours about his perception on world leaders and what he views as the deliberate dumbing down of humanity, by means of controlling the media, television and food supply.

David Icke’s talk was filled with passion and humour, obtaining a few laughs at the expense of George Bush and Tony Blair. “And they say I’m mad,” he joked as he read out some of George Bush’s absurd statements espousing the values of freedom and democracy.

Towards the end of his speech, David talked more about his spiritual take on life and the need for people to use the right creative sides of their brains more. “The dark agenda of the Illuminati is no match for infinite consciousness,” he concluded.

David Icke’s talk did not please all, including local bookshop owner and peace activist, Paul Wesley, who handed out a leaflet to people leaving the event claiming that David Icke was an anti-Semite who sought to 'target, blame, scapegoat and even dehumanise Jewish people.' However, when confronted by one conference-goer who pointed out to Mr Wesley that David Icke’s talk did not include one word of anti-Semitic material, Mr Wesley admitted that he had never read any of Icke’s books and had no idea what his talk was about.

“Perhaps if Paul Wesley had attended David Icke’s talk, instead of handing out erroneous and libellous rubbish outside the venue, he would know that David Icke is not in the least bit anti-Semitic,” said one annoyed conference attendee.

The evening finished with a concert by Lucinda Drayton of Bliss whose beautiful voice and music was a fitting end to the day’s events.

2012 researcher and author, Geoff Stray, started the final day of the conference with a fascinating talk looking at a few of the theories that have been put forward to explain the meaning behind the 2012 prophecies. Nutritionist, Holly Paige, whose talk looked at the link between nutrition, our state of consciousness and the world we collectively create as a result, followed. She looked at how the world situation has changed over millennia and is now changing at an accelerated rate so that the food available is increasingly detrimental to us.

Perhaps the most moving talk of the Alternative View was that of retired trauma surgeon, David Halpin, who portrayed the reality of the situation in Gaza. David’s talk gave a hard-hitting reality to the implications of the policies discussed by many of the speakers. He described the situation on the ground in its awful truth and reminded us that it continues as we speak. He condemned the leaders of America, Israel and the three main political parties in the UK for their inaction and therefore complicity.

He also spoke of the situation in Iraq, showing disturbing pictures of badly burned children, which indicted the use of some kind of secret “thermo nuclear device” used by the Americans.

“It is wrong to harm a single child on this planet,” he said and denounced George Bush and Tony Blair as “war criminals”.

The response of the audience was to contribute financially to David’s charity, the Dove and Dolphin hospital, which has been recently indiscriminately bombed by the Israelis.

The last speaker of the event was none other than conference organizer and host, Ian R. Crane, who thanked all involved and promised future Alternative View conferences, with the next one to be held in London in October. Mr Crane, a researcher on the geo-political agenda, summed up the conference with a presentation of his own research on the world political agenda.

Seven of the speakers ended the conference with an audience participation question and answer session. They stressed the importance of researching further the issues and to keep informed via the Internet. On a positive note, they said this sinister global agenda will not work if we do not allow it and empower ourselves to expose the lies of our governments and present an alternative agenda.

Thursday, 17 April 2008

Vitamins Will Kill You

I received the following Email from fellow researcher Terry Boardman following the re-launch of the 'Cochrane Collaboration' in the MSM. As always, Terry's observation are truly insightful.

The BBC Radio flagship programme "Today" this morning (Wed), did a feature on a report from something called 'The Cochrane Collaboration' which claimed that use of vitamins and supplements could be damaging to health. I immediately noted that trials of 230,000 (i.e. 23 again) were referred to. What is this Cochrane Collaboration that the BBC pushes our way? It's rather like the Brussels-based International Crisis Group in the foreign affairs field, which the BBC likes to make out is somehow 'impartial', and also often refers to, but the ICG is in fact a front for NWO elitists. Such groups are always said to be 'independent, non-profit-making' etc but for the ICG, take a look at their board, exec committee and key advisors:http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1139&l=1 and for their "senior advsors", here:http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4399&l=1

The Cochrane Collaboration, and the Campbell Collaboration, with which Cochrane is increasingly allied, are examples of the kind of semi-invisible bodies, linked to major elite organisations, that drive health practices into national populations via govt & supra-govt. (e.g. EU) bureaucratic channels. They they just surface from time to time, like polling institutes; they are assumed to be impartial and objective, and the mainstream media normally do not investigate them; they just assume they're neutral and "OK".

The Cochrane Collaboration are driving the agenda of the so-called 'evidence-based approach' in health and social policy. This approach has been present in education and other fields since the 80s. This is basically Baconian thinking that seeks to impose uniformity in every field, based on so-called 'empirical data' and computer modelling.[see the related area of Outcomes-Based Education below at the bottom of this post]

As is so often the case with things introduced to the public by the BBC, which claims to be 'global', you'll find that the Cochrane Collaboration, which is promoting so-called "evidence-based medicince", is overwhelmingly an outfit from the English-speaking countries (USA + Brit Commonwealth).

Cochrane takes its name from the work of British epidemiologist Archie Cochrane, who seems to have been a decent man, but it has become a system that now goes far beyond his individual initiatives. http://www.cochrane.org/docs/archieco.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_based_practiceNote that this wikipedia entry on "evidence-based" methodologies, which have spread like a virus throughout organisations of all kinds, does NOT mention the origins of the practice. The approach is directed at all non-conventional ways of doing anything, from psychiatry to social policies, seeking to discredit them on the basis of "what does not work".

Another organisation, The Campbell Collaboration, has emerged on the same model as Cochrane, but deals with crime and social policy. Note that this group is funded by, amongst others, the Rockefeller Foundation. While Cochrane insists it is not funded by the pharmaceutical companies, behind the scenes, I am sure you will find money from one of the Big Foundations, like Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie etc that are associated with the New World Order. Basically, these groups seek to push all social practice, health practice etc in the direction of uniformity of method.

http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/partnerships.asp

Here is a quote from someone critical of the "evidence-based" methods advocated by the Cochrane Collaboration. He is commenting on criticism of these methods by a Dr Healy. Note what he says.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1994886

"While I concur with Dr. Healy that relying solely on evidence-based medicine to determine medical guidelines better suits the needs of governments and insurance companies for cost control than the needs of patients for optimal medical treatment, I agree for a different reason.While evidence-based medicine is absolutely essential to comprehensive healthcare reform, it has been profoundly corrupted by money."

Ray Moynihan: Organisations like the Cochrane Collaboration are bringing renewed awareness of the benefits, the harms and the uncertainties of all medical interventions. But there are notes of caution being sounded about an over-zealous adoption of evidence-based medicine.

Professor John Loeser, The University of Washington: "I think we are at risk, as we move into a more evidence-based medicine way of practising, of throwing out the human aspects of the doctor/patient in a relationship that are very important to patient well-being and of course, it's really hard to measure what's going on between a doctor and a patient when you compare to what's going on with this new drug versus the old drug. That's easy to measure but what you and I are interacting about, that's much harder to measure. I think there is a real peril in the move towards evidence-based medicine to lose sight of the fact that physicians are human beings interacting with other human beings, patients and that's why we exist. The technology is a very new addition to health care."

Hilda Bastian: "It's an interesting thing being an outsider put into this kind of a process because it's very much like a club, you know all these people, they tend to know each other even if they don't know each other as individuals, they know who they are and where they're coming from and although they will disagree about things they've actually got a very similar kind of mind-set and it becomes a very clubbish kind of an atmosphere and I guess that doesn't lead to too much questioning."

For the CC itself, see:http://www.cochrane.org/docs/descrip.htmhttp://www.cochrane.org/docs/commercial_sponsorship_revised.htmIt's interesting to just look at the website and get a feel for the style, vocabulary, self-identification etc of this group, and ask yourself if this really has anything to do with *health* ?

See this on David Eddy, the guy who first developed evidence-based methods in medicine http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.26.4.w500v1?rss=1%3C/span%3E%3C/td%3E%3Ctd%3E+%3C/td%3E%3Ctd

http://www.conservapedia.com/David_Eddy

David Eddy is founder and medical director of Archimedes Inc. in Aspen, Colorado. Archimedes was founded to improve the quality and efficiency of health care by using advanced mathematics and computing methods to build realistic simulation models of physiology, diseases, and health care systems. Sean Tunis is founder and director of the Center for Medical Technology Policy (http://www.cmtpnet.org) in San Francisco.

You can see a video of Eddy here:http://fora.tv/2007/10/06/Hospital_of_the_Future

http://www.nclnet.org/health/ebm2.htmThis webpage above presents the background context for the push for the "evidence-based" approach, namely, that individuals are beginning to take ever more responsibility for their own health. Medical professionals don't like this. Neither do drugs companies, who depend on their relationships with GPs, hospitals and political health authorities.

http://www.equity.cochrane.org/en/newPage1.htmlThe World Bank Health, Nutrition and Population program, Reaching the Poor, has developed and funded several case studies on interventions that are targeted to the poor.This program has been developed with the commitment of the World Bank to "taking action to reduce inequalities". There is tremendous potential for synergy between the Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations and this World Bank initiative.

Here we see the link ups between the 2 'Collaborations':http://www.equity.cochrane.org/en/about.html

And, sure enough, buried away near the bottom of the page, is the Rockefeller connection:1.4 Applicability of Campbell and Cochrane reviews to equity-relevant clinical guidelines

Clinical Practice Guidelines are recognized as one way to inform clinicians of the best available evidence, in a format that is useful in practice. With ***major funding*** from the Rockefeller Foundation [my emphasis - Terry], INCLEN is developing methods for creating equity-focused and locally relevant clinical practice guidelines. These methods include applying an equity lens to existing clinical practice guidelines (Dans 1998), as well as developing new recommendations using a modification of the GRADE Working Group methods (led by Andy Oxman). The GRADE Working Group has acknowledged the importance of equity factors by proposing that equity considerations be reflected in separate recommendations. The extent to which Campbell and Cochrane reviews can play a role as the source of evidence for these separate recommendations depends on the availability of equity information in reviews.

What is INCLEN? - A Rockefeller Project : See http://www.inclen.org/history.html "INCLEN comprises health specialists concerned with the availability, effectiveness and efficiency of health care in their home countries. Created in 1980 as a project of The Rockefeller Foundation, INCLEN has been an independent non-profit organization since 1988. "

http://www.aapss.org/section.cfm/5/835/1110

Place Randomized Trials: Experimental Tests of Public Policy Edited by: Robert F. Boruch A Volume of The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science Volume 599, May 2005

As a springboard from the Campbell Collaboration initiative and supported by the Rockefeller Foundation, this special issue of the ANNALS includes a thorough review of randomized tests across a variety of studies. Exploring significant dimensions of place randomized trials (also called cluster randomized trials or group randomized trials), these papers shed light on recent efforts to enhance the quality of designing such trials as well as on results reporting.

These methods mesh in with what has been called Outcome-Based Education. It goes by many other names (see below), the brainchild of one Dr William Spady http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Spady

http://www.learningtolearn.sa.edu.au/Colleagues/pages/default/spady/

William Spady is the head of ChangeLeaders. William Spady is a sociologist and the self-proclaimed father of Outcome-Based Education (OBE). OBE is referred to by over 20 different names including Systemic education restructuring, Performance Based Education, Standards based education reform, High Performance Learning, Total Quality Management, Transformational Education, and Competency-Based Education.

"His research is still widely cited in nations such as Australia which are still adopting OBE. Nevertheless, the names have been changed in the US largely due strong negative responses to these programs when they have been introduced to actual students and parents. All of these titles refer to a similar philosophy and a plan which implements radical and "systemic" change into schools. The response to his involvement with OBE has been so negative in some communities that hundreds of parents have shown up in community meetings to protest his involvement in education planning. Many have researched the thousands of articles on the internet referring to Spady, with many showing the harmful effects of his theories on actual children."

Spady has set up something called the Unity Empowerment Trust which seeks to train new 'leaders' for society.

See : http://www.appa.asn.au/cms/uploads/events/spadykeynote2ohts.pdf

Now, who is behind Spady? Who works to make his dreams reality? You guessed it.

Thursday, 13 March 2008

Alternative Therapies on BBC2

New documentary series travels to the heart of alternative therapies.

Just a few days after the BBC shuts down its Complementary & Alternative Health website, I will be pleasantly surprised if this series is presented as a balanced piece of investigative journalism! - IRC

Alternative Therapies - a 3 part documentary series due to air on BBC Two from Monday 17 March, will follow the personal and scientific journey of Professor Kathy Sykes as she explores three fast-growing alternative therapies: meditation, hypnotherapy and reflexology.

The series, for which a trustee of the Foundation has worked on an advisory capacity, travels to locations around the globe to uncover where these therapies come from, why they are so popular and if and how they actually work.

As her journey unfolds, Professor Sykes looks at some of the impressive claims made by advocates of each therapy and with help of expert scientists, examines how such claims square with clinical and scientific results. She also experiences the therapies for herself and shares her honest reactions.

Alternative Therapies has been fully funded by the Open University. There will be follow-up debates and web-based blogs set up to discuss the issues raised in the programmes. You can reach the discussion sites via www.Open2.net.

The first programme in the series looks at hypnotherapy, and will be shown on Monday 17 March 2008 at 9.00pm on BBC Two.

Monday, 10 March 2008

The BBC Abandons Its Complementary Medicine Website Due to Pressure

(NaturalNews) The BBC, Britain's venerable TV station known and respected worldwide for its impartiality and integrity, has suddenly closed down the Complementary Medicine section on its Health website (www.bbc.co.uk/health) .

This is believed to be in response to a curious and abnormal amount of letters and e-mails demanding that information on such therapies as homeopathy and cranial osteopathy be removed.

The BBC Health website is one of the most widely accessed websites in the world and has been online for almost 15 years. Its Complementary Medicine section had in excess of 40 pages on "alternative" therapies, objective evaluations, a practitioner 'search' facility, and other useful information. But the controllers of BBC Health have now decided to abandon all coverage of Complementary Medicine.

Recently, in the UK, there has been a concerted attack on "alternative" medicine from people like University College London Professor David Colquhoun who described 61 university complementary medicine courses (45 of them science degrees) as "gobbledygook". Professor Colquhoun went on to say that, "the teaching of complementary medicine under a science banner was worse than 'Mickey Mouse' degrees in golf management and baking..."

Another critic of "complementary" medicine is Michael Baum, Emeritus Professor of Surgery at University College London, who caused a storm by criticising Prince Charles's support for the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital (RLHH). "Homeopathy," says Professor Baum, "is no better than witchcraft." Criticising a £20 million refurbishment of the RLHH Professor Baum says that that money would have been better spent on drugs like Herceptin.

In May 2006, Prince Charles had addressed the World Health Assembly in Geneva to argue for homeopathy and its kindred therapies. The Prince urged a return to remedies "rooted in ancient traditions that intuitively understood the need to maintain balance and harmony with our minds, bodies and the natural world."

The decision by BBC controllers is a curious one, especially at a time when more than 40% of Britons use some form of "complementary" medicine and spend £1.6 billion pounds annually (Ernst). In Britain, the BBC is a public service broadcaster and its remit is to broadcast for the benefit of the public - not for commercial concerns. As public outrage begins to grow, we are sure to hear a lot more about this sinister development in the days and weeks ahead.

The BBC, in response to criticism of their action, says that the "complementary health section was incomplete and, therefore, not of a satisfactory editorial standard." They go on to say, "The BBC will continue to cover complementary health in other areas of its output, such as TV, radio and news programmes, and may reassess its complementary health content in future."

If you have ever accessed the BBC's "Complementary Medicine" site or believe that it should be restored, please take just a minute to complain or express your views using their online comment form at: (www.bbc.co.uk/feedback/)

Saturday, 1 March 2008

The Alternative View

Codex Alimentarius is not a phrase you are likely to hear or read in the mainstream media. The phase simply means ‘Food Code’ or ‘Food Law’, yet the 27 committees of the International Codex Alimentarius Commission are advancing global legislation which will effectively eradicate Organic Farming, in favour of irradiated GM products; and will destroy the Complementary & Alternative Health Community by making it illegal to prescribe, or even recommend, nutritional supplements, vitamins, herbs or other natural health remedies.

This pernicious attack on our Health Freedoms is being driven by the corporatocracy of Big Farmer & Big Pharma … yet few people are aware of the Codex steam train coming down the tracks at an alarming rate!

The only 2008 event in the UK, which has been convened specifically to raise public awareness of the UN/EU Codex threat,The Alternative View Conference will take place in Totnes, Devon, described as the alternative Capital of the world.

Monday, 17 December 2007

Big Pharma & Social Conditioning

"There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it ... [through] brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods."

Aldous Huxley, speech at the California Medical School in San Francisco, 1961

"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”

Bertrand Russell, 'The Impact of Science on Society', 1953, pg 49-50

"I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment."

"Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen."

Bertrand Russell, 'The Impact of Science on Society', 1953

It's time to choose whether you will be complicit by your silence ... or whether you will take responsibility and be part of the change you want to see!

Friday, 7 December 2007

Codex sanctions BIO Businesses

If ever there was any doubt that Codex Alimentarius is a vehicle for Big Pharma, Big Farmer & the BioTech industries to take their ware global, the following article from the Monsanto website should put those doubts to rest.

PolicyBiotechnology Industry Organization President and CEO Jim Greenwood today issued the following statement on the adoption by the Codex Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Food Derived from Biotechnology, in Chiba, Japan, of a U.S. government proposal to develop a food safety risk assessment process for adventitious presence:

“Today, the Codex Alimentarius Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Food Derived from Biotechnology agreed to accept the U.S. government’s proposal on Low-Level Presence of Recombinant-DNA Material. The task force has formed a working group, which will be chaired by the United States, Germany and Thailand, to draft an annex to the Codex Plant Guideline addressing the elements of a safety assessment for low-level presence of rDNA material in food, and identifying information-sharing mechanisms to facilitate utilization of the Annex and the data necessary to conduct an assessment of food safety by an importing country. BIO and its members applaud the Codex’s commitment to ensuring food safety for consumers, farmers, food processors, and grain handlers. BIO also thanks the U.S. government for successfully advocating adoption of this project by the Codex.

“Over the last several years, BIO and its members have continually urged Codex to implement a science-based policy that governs incidental or trace amounts – or so-called ‘adventitious presence’ – of biotechnology-enhanced events in food and feed. This intergovernmental task force’s safety assessment will complement the policies on adventitious presence adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection agency in September 2006 and by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in June 2006.

“The EPA and FDA food safety evaluations recognize that adventitious presence is a safe and natural part of plant biology, seed production, and the distribution of commodity crops. They have served as a crucial step toward development of comprehensive international science-based systems that regulate modern agricultural products. This is especially important in today’s global trading arena as more than 8.5 million farmers are growing biotech crops in 21 countries.”

BIO represents more than 1,100 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers and related organizations across the United States and 31 other nations. BIO members are involved in the research and development of healthcare, agricultural, industrial and environmental biotechnology products.

Monday, 3 December 2007

From Concep$ion to D£ath

A Reflection from 2030

"Apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand" - Bodie Thoene

It is almost fifteen years now since organic food disappeared from the supermarkets and ten years since it became illegal for farmers to declare their produce as ‘Organic’, under pain of having their farms confiscated by the recently established North Atlantic Union, an amalgamation of the amalgamation of the EU andNorth American Union.

The President of the NAU is appointed by the Corporate Council, a body of ‘elders’ whose every decision is dictated by the industrial/military/Agri-pharma complex.

Monsanto have just announced that they now own every seed and plant remaining on the planet. The last remaining natural seeds being destroyed in the ‘accidental’ release of a pernicious DDT derivative that wiped-out the last bastions of natural farming.

The lack of nutrition in the GM foods, coupled with the abolition of the Complementary and Alternative Healthcare industry, has led to a whole host of new debilitating illness & disease. A situation which has resulted in the Pharmaceutical companies reporting record profits, as more and more drugs are developed to fight illness & disease brought about by a diet of GM and processed food. Addiction to prescribed drugs at birth is becoming an increasingly common condition.

How did we ever get into this situation? Well, the history books tell us that in 2009, the first EU President, Tony Blair, signed a piece of legislation called Codex Alimentarius; paving the way for the likes of Monsanto and Big Pharma to begin the process of abolishing organic farming and marginalizing the Complementary & Natural Health Community.

“Why didn’t anyone try to stop Codex Alimentarius from being implemented?” I hear you ask. This is a very good question and one that still baffles people today. Records show that alternative communities like Totnes & Glastonbury were given the opportunity to attend talks and conferences on the subject but there was great apathy.

One report states that when Complementary & Alternative Health Practitioners were told about the imminent threat of Codex Alimentarius, they responded by saying things like, “ No way – they’ll never do anything like that!” or “Oh, that’s so negative … I just don’t give it the energy.”

By 1st January 2010, it was all over. What had become known as the ‘Totnes Bubble’ was well and truly burst. People across the Country took to the streets in their hundreds of thousands as the full realisation hit home … but it was too little, too late. If only the Organic Farmers, Complementary and Alternative Health Industry & Transition Town Communities had united behind the leadership of the Alliance for Natural Health, to fight the implementation of Codex Alimentarius, things might be rather different today. If only …..

About Me

An ex-oilfield executive who has lived and worked in the Middle East, mainland Europe and the USA, Ian has spent the past ten years studying mythology, alternative history, secret societies, esotericism, … and deep geopolitics! Ian does not represent or speak or write on behalf of any organisation; consequently all views expressed are based upon his personal knowledge and research.